Status of libtool 2.2.X?

[Braden McDaniel]

On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 19:36 +0200, Karsten Hopp wrote:
>>> Getting libtool-2.2 into F-11 is my plan, but I most likely need  
>>> to get that through
>>> FESCo as it breaks up to 300 packages according to my mass  
>>> rebuilds. I'm going to
>>> prepare a Wiki page with details about that.
>>
>> Isn't the whole point of libtool that it should make things _easier_,
>> not break huge swathes of packages whenever we change it?
>>
>> How about we fix those 300 packages by making them _not_ use libtool,
>> rather than making them use the latest version?
>>
> Hand coding Makefiles to compile shared libraries on all platforms  
> is .
> Before libtools many upstreams simply wouldn't package shared  
> libraries
> because of all the problems with getting it right for SunOS, Solaris,
> OpenBSD, NetBSD, i386BSD, FreeBSD, AIX, Linux-aout, Linux-elf, gcc,  
> acc,
> etc.  If the state of the art has advanced and there's a tool that can
> replace libtool so a developer can say "I want a shared library" and  
> the
> tool builds it on all platforms then we could look into getting
> upstreams to switch but simply getting rid of libtool in favour of
> handcoding Makefiles to build shared libraries is a step in the wrong
> direction.

Spec files that are breaking because they're running libtoolize/ 
auto[re]conf should be fixed, obviously. Wholesale replacement of  
packages' build systems is intractable and a silly suggestion.

This conversation really can't proceed productively without some  
concrete information about the nature of the failures.

Braden